Reconfiguring Collection Development A Faculty Print Serials Review Audrey Powers, Matt Torrence Cheryl McCoy, Jared Hoppenfeld University of South Florida Charleston Conference - November 5, 2009

Metropolitan University (population 39,000) 1850 Instructional Faculty 9000 Graduate Students 130 Advanced Degree Programs Large Academic Library – Number of volumes 2,472,484 – Periodical subscriptions 31,700 – Licensed databases 685 University of South Florida

Periodicals ,700 periodical subscriptions 25,150 e-Journals purchased 11,180 open access e-Journals Total E-Access = 36,330 e-Journals

Motivation Spend library money responsibly Transparent process Faculty input was important Address workflow, space and budget issues

Is Print Used? Do students and faculty still use print journals? Print journals are expensive to purchase, bind, store, and maintain Dust in the stacks provides the first clue for some titles, but that’s not enough evidence

Faculty Engagement Dean of Libraries wanted to engage the faculty Endorsement of study from Library Council and CD Faculty Representatives The survey instrument was tested through a pilot project Initial survey was distributed campus-wide early April, 2008

Resources Used Databases – Journal Citation Reports (JCR) – Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory Books – Journals of the Century by Tony Stankus Periodicals – Magazines for Libraries by William A. Katz Others – Curriculum Vita of USF Faculty Members – USF Libraries’ Core Title List

Survey Development Subject librarians compiled lists of print journals, by discipline Most core journal titles were exempt from the survey Separate survey instruments created for use with each of the Colleges

Survey Dissemination Librarians worked with Deans and Department Heads to distribute survey materials Publicity about the website was sent to faculty using a variety of methods 1642 faculty were contacted and 340 responded to the initial survey

SurveyMonkey

The Process Survey results for each title were tabulated according to a three-point continuum of Use, Don’t Use, and No Opinion. Two usage rates were computed for each title, as follows: – Including No Opinions – Excluding No Opinions

The Process Usage threshold of 20% was established Librarians used discretion on the threshold for each subject, or discipline Exceptions were the norm Some titles saved from the axe Free the bound periodicals

Initial Results

Final Review Process Faculty and students had one last opportunity to review the titles on the chopping block In lieu of a follow-up survey, librarians developed a Print Journals Review website Three lists were created, allowing respondents to view the titles alphabetically, by format, and by discipline

Print Journals Review Website

Journal Retention Each title was linked to an online Journal Retention Form Subject librarians reviewed all Journal Retention Forms that were submitted Journals retained in print were removed from the final review list

Journal Retention Form

After Final Review 223 titles were canceled – $41, saved 54 journals added – $51, total expenditure 29 new e-journals added – Use statistics = 1147

Cancellations by College Subject AreaTotal Savings# of Titles CVPA$1, Social & Behavioral Science$1, COBA$23, Natural Sciences$8, Library Science$1, Arts & Letters$2, Engineering$1, Education$1, Total$41,

Print Journals Review Summary

Contact Information Audrey Powers – Matt Torrence – Cheryl McCoy – Jared Hoppenfeld – This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License